Fisheries management measures within Scottish Offshore Marine Protected Areas (MPAs): consultation analysis

Faroe-Shetland Sponge Belt MPA

Overview

Overall, most responses to this question indicate support for Option 2 for Faroe-Shetland Sponge Belt MPA. This is significantly influenced by responses from the Oceana and SE Link campaigns which support these measures while responses from the SWFPA campaign prefer Option 1.

It should be noted that there are mixed views among both organisational and non-campaign responses to the proposal for this site.

This again emphasises a divide between industry stakeholders, concerned about economic impacts and job security, and conservation advocates.

Support for Option 2: ecological benefits and environmental commitments

Support for Option 2 fisheries management measures was rooted in similar reasons provided by those who said the same for other MPA sites; respondents believe full site closure provides greater environmental protection and is necessary to meet Scottish Government’s environmental commitments as well as adequately protect habitats with one saying:

“The zonal option would leave over 17% of the protected feature, subtidal sands and gravel subject to bottom towed fishing. Given that this feature remains in an unfavourable condition and it supports the development and functioning of the other protected features of the site, it is our view that conservation objectives to recover subtidal gravel and sand, Deep-sea sponge aggregations, Ocean quahog aggregations, continental slope channels, iceberg plough marks, prograding wedges, slide deposits, sand wave fields and sediment wave fields to a favourable condition is not possible under this option.” [Organisation]

A few respondents also emphasised the need to abide by the precautionary principle in this case, due to the importance of connectivity for deep sea sponge aggregations and full ecosystem recovery as:

“Deep-Sea Sponge Aggregations (DSSA) create complex habitats supporting high biodiversity and providing refuge for fish, potentially rivalling coldwater coral reefs in terms of functional importance…Fishing activities have likely greatly reduced the distribution of DSSA which historically is likely to have been extensive. Given that DSSA may be highly susceptible to fragmentation because of short planktonic larval duration and dispersal, increasing the extent of DSSA and DSSA habitat that is protected may be required to prevent reproductive isolation and ensure ecological coherence of the protected populations. It is also possible that unmapped DSSA occur within the site. Protection across the site would help ensure that other PMFs (such as ocean quahog and migrating cetaceans) receive greater protection, and a representative range of depths on the continental slope is protected, some representation for which is currently lacking across the network.” [Organisation]

Support for Option 1: Stakeholder engagement

Responses in support of Option 1 management measures largely repeated similar themes to responses expressing support for these measures at other sites, which was that zonal measures were developed with comprehensive stakeholder engagement.

Support for neither Option 1 nor Option 2 measures

Many respondents did not support either management option, citing arguments including inadequate stakeholder consultation, socioeconomic costs, concerns for displacement leading to greater ecological harm elsewhere, and the absence of vulnerable marine features in one-third of the site. One respondent was also unsupportive of imposing either management option due to concerns about displacement of fishing activity and conflict between Scottish and foreign fishers.

Conditional support for management measures

However, one respondent said they were supportive of the Option 1 measures conditional on the area between the deep sea sponge and ocean quahog aggregations being excluded from the NCMPA boundary; they believe allowing fishing in this area should not be environmentally harmful and will also prevent significant financial harm.

One respondent stated they do not support either option, but that their priority is for the deep sea sponge aggregations to be protected, and thus their support for management measures is conditional on the results of JNCC’s 2021 monitoring survey in the Faroe-Shetland Sponge Belt:

“I strongly advise that a final management decision awaits the publication of the analysis of this monitoring survey. This survey was spatially extensive and stratified by depth and covers areas that would remain open to fishing activities in this zonal proposal…If that dataset were to indicate that there are no sponge aggregations outside the mobile and static demersal gear closure zone, then I support Option 1. If sponge aggregations are found outside this zone, then Option 2 must be implemented to ensure full coverage of any new sponge aggregations. Alternatively, a third option would be to extend the proposed mobile and static demersal gear closure zone to encompass any new aggregations the survey found.” [Individual]

Impacts on the static gear sector

Many respondents also emphasised insufficient stakeholder engagement in the development of these measures, particularly because those involved in demersal statics gear fishing were not consulted, despite being impacted by any imposed measures. They went on to say that in addition to not being consulted, the environmental impacts from their fishing activities have not been accurately assessed. As such, these respondents believe static gear should not be included in the proposed measures. One respondent provided details about the socio-economic impacts the restrictions on French demersal static gear activity would have on the French fishing industry, and provided a map with an alternative zoning option in their response:

“Whether in option 1 or 2, the production of certain French longliners in this area is between 47 and 224 tonnes per year per vessel, representing an annual value of between €193k and €1,252k. Furthermore, in terms of value, the percentage produced in this area per vessel per year is between 11% and 47% of the total value produced.” [Organisation]

Moreover, some of those who opposed both management options due to the restrictions on demersal static gears went on to say that their sector will be unfairly disproportionately impacted due to the way the boundary was drawn. More specifically, this is because a “significant part of the southern third of the area” [Organisation] within the boundary, which is where most demersal activities within the site take place, does not contain any priority marine features, and thus should not be included within the proposed zone.

Summary

Full site management measures supporters were in favour of the ecological benefits they provide, particularly due to the presence of deep-sea sponge aggregations in the area and zonal management measures supporters were positive about the stakeholder engagement process they underwent. Moreover, many respondents were not supportive of either proposed measures; some said they were supportive conditional on the exact location of the boundary, either to allow fishing activity or to ensure protection of all deep-sea sponge aggregations and some were unsupportive due to impacts on the static gear sector.